Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Against Ambition

Robinson Crusoe begins with a disagreement. Eighteen-year-old Crusoe is full of ambition. He’s determined to leave home and set sail for some faraway continent: Africa, perhaps, or South America. After all, the year is 1650, and the seafaring life promises the quickest route to fame and fortune. But Crusoe’s father is set against it and he pleads with his son to remain at home. One morning, the elder Crusoe calls his son into his chamber. In a final attempt to dissuade his son, he sings the praises of a peaceful life, in which people are

not enraged with the passion of envy, or secret burning lust of ambition for great things, but in easy circumstances sliding gently through the world, and sensibly tasting the sweets of living, without the bitter, feeling that they are happy, and learning by every day’s experience to know it more sensibly.

Crusoe is touched by this speech and he resolves to remain
at home. But, alas, his ambition ultimately prevails. On the 1st of
September 1651, he boards a ship out of Hull and his “life of misery” begins.
He does not return for 35 years.

If the lures of Crusoe’s ambition were great, the
lures of ambition in our own day are greater still. Crusoe’s ambition could be
kindled only by stories. Our own ambitions are stoked by billboards, screens,
and Facebook feeds. Never before have their objects seemed so vivid, so close. However, I claim that we ought to resist our ambitions all
the same. Like Crusoe’s father, I want to warn against the temptation of
casting our ships out to sea.

Before we begin, I must note two things. The first
concerns the scope of this article. I will not try to determine whether
ambition has made the world better or worse than it would otherwise have been. Ambition
might well be the cause of both humanity’s greatest achievements and its worst
atrocities. Who can say whether the final balance will turn out positive or
negative? My aim is more modest. I claim only that ambition is no virtue; that we
would live better, happier lives if we were less ambitious; and that we ought
to devote our energies not to realising our ambitions but to reducing them.

The second thing to note is what I mean by ambition.
Plato defined it as the desire for victory. Aristotle understood it as the
desire for honour. David Hume and Adam Smith considered it the desire for power
and the desire for admiration respectively. Each capture one part of the truth.
We come closer by taking up only the common element in each of these ideas: ambition
is a desire for greater things. But this definition is still not quite right,
for not all those who desire greater things are ambitious. A homeless man
looking for shelter on a cold night desires something greater than what he has,
but this desire does not make him ambitious. A hungry child is not made
ambitious by her desire for a good meal. So how do we determine which of our
desires are ambitions? The French essayist François de La Rochefoucauld points
us toward the answer. In his Reflections,
he writes, “Absence extinguishes small passions and increases great ones, as
the wind blows out a candle and fans a fire.” I suggest that the same
phenomenon marks the difference between ambitions and ordinary desires, albeit
with ‘resistance’ in place of ‘absence.’ Ambitions are those desires that fade
and die if we resist them long enough. Ordinary desires only grow as we resist
them. The passing of time may extinguish our desire for a higher salary and a
bigger house, but it will only increase the desire of the hungry child. With
this point noted, we have our definition: an ambition is a desire for greater
things that fades with resistance.

So, we find ourselves with a choice. We can resist our
ambitions or we can realise them. Why resist? Well, to begin, our ambitions for
the future hurt us in the present. Pursuing the things we lack blunts our appreciation
of the things we have. The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer illustrated
this fact by comparing human happiness to a fraction, where the numerator
represents what we have and the denominator represents what we hope for. Just
as a large numerator will not make a large fraction if the denominator is
larger still, so great things will not make us happy if our desires are greater
still.

Modern psychologists have placed this wisdom on a
firmer scientific footing. Study after study has found that our happiness
depends on the size of our aspiration-achievement
gap: the gap between what we aspire to and what we achieve. Experiments
have shown that even life’s smallest pleasures are tarnished by a desire for more.
Chocolate doesn’t taste as good if you’re hoping for something better, and
you’ll savour it less if you’re thinking about money. The aspiration-achievement
gap may even shed light on a puzzling fact about attempted prison escapes: convicts
often try to escape toward the end of their sentences, when they would seem to
have least to gain. This phenomenon might seem bizarre, but the aspiration-achievement
model provides a neat explanation. As a prisoner approaches the end of his
sentence, he imagines his future freedom more frequently and more vividly. His
desire for freedom grows, widening the gap between what he has and what he hopes
for. Eventually, the size of the gap becomes unbearable and he attempts his
escape.

Of course, most of our ambitions are not like the
prisoner’s desire for freedom. His desire is doubly harmful. It frustrates him
in the present and it spurs him to risk his future. Our ambitions also frustrate
us in the present, but they seem to spur us to a better future. They drive us
to win promotions, make discoveries, write books, earn accolades, and plenty
more besides. Thus, we might acknowledge that our ambitions are harmful but
maintain that we ought to hold on to them all the same. We might claim that
being ambitious is, on balance, worth it.

The idea is an attractive one. Ambition seems to be a
trade in which we endure a slightly-tarnished present for the sake of a
much-improved future. However, I claim that it’s a trade we ought to refuse,
and for two reasons. First, the benefits of ambition are never as great as we
imagine. Second, the costs are much greater than we realise.

Let’s begin with the first reason. We form ambitions,
in part, because we expect that achieving them will make us feel certain ways.
We picture certain scenes – opening a letter, signing a contract, climbing a
podium – and imagine the accompanying emotions: pride, or joy, or contentment.
But, all too often, the long-awaited scene comes to pass and the emotions miss
their cue. You open the letter, you sign the contract, you reach the top of the
podium, and wait for the happiness to radiate through you. But you feel only a faint glimmer, and then a kind
of emptiness and unease.

We all have experiences of this kind. We human beings
are surprisingly bad at what psychologists call affective forecasting: predicting how future events will make us
feel. We frequently overestimate both the intensity and duration of our future
emotions. For example, college football fans are not nearly as pleased by their
team winning as they imagine they will be. More relevant to ambition, securing
tenure does not make junior academics nearly as joyful as they hoped, and
missing out does not make them nearly as miserable as they expected. We
misjudge how future events will make us feel, in part, because we focus too
much on that event and fail to consider other factors. We are especially
vulnerable to this focusing illusion
when we picture the attainment of our ambitions. We imagine only the signing of
the contract and expect a warm
glow of delight. We neglect to imagine the attendant stresses which will
cloud our happiness.

Nevertheless, you might argue, a glimmer of
satisfaction is still a glimmer. Realising our ambitions still makes us happy,
even if we’re liable to overestimate the exact amount. Therefore, you might
claim, our wonky affective forecasting gives us no reason to renounce our
ambitions. But to think this way is to overlook ambition’s costs. We must
recognise that our ambitions are not benefactors who give without taking. We
pay for our ambitions with our time, our energy, and our emotional investment,
and we draw on limited funds to do so. Every hour spent at our desk is one fewer with friends. Every joule
of energy expended in pursuit of a dream is one fewer for family. Nights that could have been restful are dogged by tossing
and turning. Days that could have been tranquil are blighted by self-censure
and restlessness. At its extreme, ambition compels us to give all that we have.
Crusoe’s ambition drove him from Hull to Great Yarmouth, on to London, then to
Guinea on the west coast of Africa, over to Brazil, and to a shipwreck on a remote
island. By the time he returned home over three decades later, his father was
dead. We should beware the tempting thought that our own ambitions are not so
costly. Nowadays we pay in smaller instalments, but the final price may be
greater still.

Recent research suggests that the price we pay is
often too high and that the demands of our ambitions exceed their promise. Psychologistsnote that
each of us can be placed somewhere along a scale between pure maximisers and pure
satisficers, where pure maximisers desire the best possible result and pure
satisficers desire only a good enough result. When surveyed, those with greater
maximising tendencies report feeling less happy than those inclined to
satisfice. Maximisers also report feeling more regret, more depression, more
difficulty making decisions, less optimism, and less satisfaction with their
choices. What’s more, maximisers feel this way even when their ambition affords
them the expected advantages. College students with greater maximising
tendencies secured better-paying jobs than their satisficing counterparts, but
nevertheless felt worse during the search and were less satisfied with the
result. Their ambition made them feel “pessimistic, stressed, tired, anxious,
worried, overwhelmed, and depressed throughout the process,” and at the end it
rewarded them only with more disappointment.

Here, though, you might be tempted to lodge an
objection: if the maximising students were disappointed, it can only be because
they have not yet achieved their ambitions. You might claim that the lesson of
the study is not that we should give up but that we should fight harder, because
our ambitions will repay us all our sacrifices and more when we achieve them. But
this is like claiming that the lesson of an expensive night in Vegas is not
that you should go home but that you should bet more, because the casino will
repay you all your money and more when you win big. In life, as in Vegas
casinos, winning is not guaranteed. It would be reckless to ignore the painful
– but very real – possibility that we will not accomplish all that we hope.

However, even if by some miracle we turn out to be
among the select few who achieve all their ambitions, I claim that these achievements
will likely still come at too dear a price. To see why, note first that
our ambitions are, as a rule, self-directed. You desire not just that some
important discovery be made, but that you
make it. I desire not just that some eminent position be filled, but that I fill it. So, we often compete to achieve
our ambitions. We invest time and energy into pursuits in which not everybody
wins. One of the lesser-known examples from game theory offers a lively illustration
of this dynamic and its consequences:

A $20 bill is put up for sale. Bidding begins at $1 and
proceeds in $1 increments. The highest bidder pays what they bid and receives
the $20 bill. The second highest bidder
pays what they bid and receives nothing.

You can try this dollar
auction for yourself at your next party. Initially, there might be some
apprehension, but someone will soon bid $1. The prospect of a $19 profit is
simply too tempting. Another person will bid $2 for the same reason. $20 for $2
is a once-in-a-lifetime deal. But, unfortunately for the bidders, these seductive
thoughts will be their downfall. The first bidder will have a choice at this
point: back out now and pay $1 for nothing or advance the bidding to $3 for a
$17 profit. Of course, he will bid again. But this move will force on the
second bidder an analogous choice: back out now and pay $2 for nothing or
advance the bidding to $4 for a $16 profit. She will also bid again. This easy
choice swings back and forth until it’s no longer so easy. Should the second
bidder advance the bidding to $20? She can no longer hope to make a profit, but
at least she’ll avoid a loss of $18. However, her $20 bid will put the first
bidder back on the hook for $19. He will face a perplexing choice: back out now
and lose $19 or bid $21 (for a $20 bill!) and lose just $1. He too will bid
again. But the second bidder will bid $22 for the same reason and now there’s
no telling where the bidding will end. A professor who auctioned off $20 bills
to his organisational behaviour classes reports that he often received bids
north of $50 and notes one instance in which the bidding reached $2000.

The analogy to ambition should be clear. When we
pursue our ambitions, we bid our time and energy against the time and energy of
others, and we pay no matter what. This matching dynamic begets matching
consequences. As in the dollar auction, our reluctance to let past investments
go to waste drives us to invest ever more, until our efforts far exceed the
value of their object. Of course, our greatest sympathies will be reserved for
those who fall short. They invest much and walk away with nothing. But notice
that ambition is a game in which even the winners lose. They pay $50 for a $20
bill. Notice also that this pernicious dynamic requires only the smallest of
investments to get its start. $1 is enough to seal a bidder’s fate. Ambition,
like the dollar auction, is a strange game. The only winning move is not to
play.

Ambition, then, depends on a host of misjudgements,
confusions, and temptations. We overestimate its benefits, overlook its costs,
and overbid our time and energy. But there is one final temptation to be
addressed and rooted out: the temptation to say, ‘One more.’ For many of us,
this article will have come at an inopportune time. It will have found us
halfway through our own dollar auctions – already well on our way to realising
some ambition – and we will be tempted to say, ‘One more. Let me accomplish
this final thing, and then I will relax.’ But this thought is as pernicious as
all the others. Achieving this ambition will almost certainly take us halfway
to the next one, and it will be just as tempting to say ‘One more’ when we get
there. The lesson of Robinson Crusoe
is that ambition is not a journey with a fixed destination at which we might
finally and happily come to rest. It is a voyage that has no end. The novel
takes Crusoe through three continents, and the last pages see him leaving home
once again for a fourth. If he were aiming for any definite place, he would
have reached it long ago. It is as if the horizon is the true object of
Crusoe’s desire. We should learn from his mistake. Our ambitions have been
driving us our entire lives. If they were ever going to satisfy us, they would
have done so by now. Our own horizon will elude us no matter how far we sail.

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Email

Other Apps

Like PhilosophYe on Facebook!

Popular posts from this blog

The story of Run the Jewels is, above all, a story of great
branding.
Type their name into YouTube and you’ll see what I mean.
Their first album, ‘Run the Jewels’, begins with a song called ‘Run the
Jewels’, the chorus to which goes ‘Run the jewels, jewels, jewels…’. There’s
the acronym – RTJ – that crops up whenever there’s three syllables going spare.
Then there’s the gun-and-fist hand-symbol that both forms the basis of all
three album covers and serves as a get-out-of-jail-free card for anyone unsure
what to do with their hands at a gig. RTJ have turned brand recognition into an
art form.
But the songs are pretty decent too. They provide for young people what the priesthood provided in previous generations: a comprehensive vision of the world and a sense of purpose. They paint a picture of a world in which all the
lies, violence and corruption have finally come to a head and it’s now or never
for all the would-be saviours of humanity. The overriding impression is of this
final ba…

He had one-hundred-and-nine hours to rehearse his lines, and his lines amounted to a mere thirteen words. He could have spent eight hours on each word if he really wanted to. He could have devoted an entire working day to making sure each word came out just right. You couldn’t have blamed him for doing so. It had cost $25 billion to get him to this point. He’d travelled 240,000 miles. Half a billion people were watching. It had officially kicked off eight years ago, but this event was the fulfilment of a dream as old as dreams themselves. After centuries of learning, of striving, of fantasising, this was to be humanity’s finest hour. This was to be our first stop on our way out of the cradle and into the big, wide universe. A human being was going to walk on the moon. The occasion was momentous enough to be recorded to the second. At 02:56:15 UTC on the 21st of July 1969, Neil Armstrong set his left boot on the surface of the moon and delivered those famous words: